State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shri Gurcharan Singh Rathore on 21 September, 2010
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA, CAMP AT SOLAN. Appeal No. 335/2009. Date of Decision 21.9.2010. In the matter of: National Insurance Company Limited. Branch Office, Moti Bazar, Solan, through its Divisional Manager, Himland Hotel, Circular Road, Shimla 171 001. Appellant. Versus Sh. Gurcharan Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Bagga Ram R/o VPO Khillian, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, HP. Respondent. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Honble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate vice counsel Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. For the Respondent. Ms. Neelam Kaplas, Advocate alongwith Mr. Gurcharan Singh Rathore, who has been identified as such by Ms. Kaplas. O R D E R
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).
Appellant is aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum, Solan in Consumer Complaint No.22/2008, dated 24.7.2009. While disposing of the complaint following direction has been given:-
In the interest of justice and fair play, the, OP-Company shall re-determine or reassess the claim of the complainant and in case certain sums of money as detailed in Annexure R-5 to be the estimated expendable sums, are, liable to deduction, then, while proceeding to deduct from the total sums of money detailed in the estimates, good and plausible reasons shall be afforded by the Loss Assessor. It is also directed that in the interest of justice and fair play, the OP-Company shall issue notice, to, the complainant before proceeding to reassess the claim of the complainant.
The OP-Company shall proceed to complete this exercise within a period of three weeks after the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case, the complainant, is, not satisfied with the reassessment, he shall be at liberty to re-agitate the matter afresh. However, there shall be no order as to the costs. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules.
The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
While issuing this direction, report of the surveyor whereby he had assessed the loss at Rs. 22,434/- was not accepted.
2. In support of this appeal, Dr. Sharma submitted that report of the surveyor has been rejected without any justifiable cause, muchless rhyme or reason. Further according to him surveyor is an independent person appointed by competent authority and his report should thus be given due weightage. Further according to Dr. Sharma, it cannot be brushed aside lightly. He thus prayed for allowing this appeal thereby holding that compensation, if any in accordance with law, was payable on the basis of the report of the surveyor.
On the other hand according to learned counsel for the respondent, her client had incurred a sum or Rs. 55,000/- in getting the tractor trolley repaired that was admittedly insured with the appellant on the date of accident. She thus prayed for modifying the impugned order and directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 55,000/- with interest, compensation as well as cost.
3. Dr. Sharma also pointed out that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle, and the driver was holding a driving licence whereby he was licensed to drive light a motor vehicle (NT), therefore according to him amount if any payable was on non standard basis, i.e. at 75% of the assessed loss of Rs. 22,434/-. In this behalf when a reference is made to the driving licence Annexure R-9, it is clear that it was issued prior to 28.3.2001 by the licensing authority. What is significance of this date came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Annappa Irappa Nesaria Alias Nesaragi & Ors, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 464. In the face of this decision submission of Dr. Sharma that the driver was not licensed to drive the tractor is being noted to be rejected. Likewise reliance placed by Dr. Sharma on the decision of this commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Bachan Kaur & Others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 765 is misconceived and has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case. Instead of having left the matter to the appellant company for deciding the same in our opinion District Forum below should have come to an independent conclusion and then it should have given direction. As such this direction also needs to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
4. No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and finding recorded by the District Forum below while not accepting the report of the surveyor and consequently rejecting the Consumer Complaint No. 22/2008, it is held that respondent is entitled to Rs. 22,434/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 23.1.2008 till the deposit/payment whichever is earlier, besides cost of litigation which is quantified of this appeal as well as of the complaint, at a lump-sum Rs. 4000/-. Appeal is disposed of subject to this modification.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Solan.
September 21, 2010. ( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President.
(Saroj Sharma) Member.
(Chander Shekher Sharma) Member.
/KGuleria/